document_title: List of Arizona Diamondbacks managers

question_text: who is the manager of the az diamondbacks

text: List of Arizona Diamondbacks managers

text: Key[edit]

text:
#
Number of coaches[A]

GC
Games coached

W
Wins

L
Losses

Win%
Winning percentage

text: Statistics are accurate through the 2017 MLB season.

text: Managers[edit]

text:
#[a]
Manager
Seasons
G
W
L
Win%
PA
PW
PL
LC
WS
Ref

1
Buck Showalter
1998–2000
486
250
236
.514
4
1
3
1999 National League West Championship.
[8]

2
Bob Brenly
2001–2004
565
303
262
.536
20
11
9
2001 & 2002 National League West Championship, 2001 National League Championship Series Championship, 2001 World Series Championship.
[9]

3
Al Pedrique
2004
83
22
61
.265
–
–
–

[10]

4
Bob Melvin
2005–2009
677
337
340
.498
7
3
4
2007 National League Manager of Year, 2007 National League West Champions.
[11]

5
A. J. Hinch
2009–2010
212
89
123
.420
–
–
–

[12]

6
Kirk Gibson
2010–2014
729
353
376
.484
5
2
3
2011 National League Manager of Year, 2011 National League West Champions.
[13]

7
Alan Trammell
2014
3
1
2
.333
–
–
–

8
Chip Hale
2015–2016
324
148
176
.457
–
–
–

9
Torey Lovullo
2017–present
162
93
69
.574
4
1
3

text: Wally Backman was hired as the Diamondbacks manager on November 1, 2004, but was fired four days later on November 5, 2004, due to off-field issues.

text:
Buck Showalter is the first manager of the Arizona Diamondbacks 1998 to 2000.

Bob Brenly, the manager of the Arizona Diamondbacks 2001 to 2004, Also won the 2001 World Series championship.

Bob Melvin, the manager of the Arizona Diamondbacks 2005 to 2009.

Kirk Gibson, the manager of the Arizona Diamondbacks 2010 to 2014.

Torey Lovullo current Diamondbacks team manager.

text: Notes[edit]

text: A A running total of the number of managers of the Diamondbacks. Thus any manager who has had two or more terms as manager is only counted once.


document_title: List of first black players for European national football teams

question_text: who was first black footballer to play for england

root

text: The following is a list of the first black or mixed-race players to represent European international association football teams. The first black man to play international football was Andrew Watson, who earned the first of his three caps for Scotland on 12 March 1881, when he captained them in a 6–1 win away to England at The Oval in London.[1]

tag: p

text:
Team
Player
Debut
Notes

 Scotland
Andrew Watson
 England, 12 March 1881
Born in Demerara, British Guiana (now Guyana) to an Afro-Guyanese mother and Scottish father.[1]
No black players represented Scotland since Watson until the debut of Nigel Quashie on 27 May 2004. Quashie was born in London to a Ghanaian father and English mother, and qualified for Scotland through a grandfather.[2]

 Austria
Helmut Köglberger
 Hungary, 5 September 1965
Born in Steyr, Austria to an African-American father and Austrian mother.

 Belgium
Dimitri Mbuyu
 Portugal, 4 February 1987
Born in Berchem, Belgium, of Congolese origin.

 Faroe Islands
Sonni Nattestad
 Malta, 19 November 2013
Born in Tórshavn, Faroe Islands, of Afro-Haitian origin.

 France
Raoul Diagne
 Czechoslovakia, 15 February 1931
Diagne was born to Senegalese parents in Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni, French Guiana.[3]

 Wales
Eddie Parris
 Northern Ireland, 5 December 1931
Parris, born to Jamaican parents in Pwllmeyric near Chepstow, played one match for Wales.[4]

 Germany
Erwin Kostedde
 Malta, 22 December 1974
Born in Münster to an African-American father and German mother.[5]

 Greece
Daniel Batista Lima
 Finland, 12 October 1994
Born in São Vicente, Cape Verde, a naturalised Greek citizen.

 England
Viv Anderson
 Czechoslovakia, 29 November 1978
The first black player to represent England at any level was Benjamin Odeje, for the England schoolboys team against Northern Ireland in 1971.[6] Paul Ince was the nation's first black captain, against the United States in June 1993.[7]

 Republic of Ireland
Chris Hughton
 United States, 29 October 1979
Hughton was born in London to a Ghanaian father and Irish mother.[8]

 Spain
Donato Gama da Silva
 Denmark, 16 November 1994
Born in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and a naturalised Spanish citizen. The first Spanish-born black player in the team was Vicente Engonga, born in Barcelona to Equatoguinean parents, who debuted against Russia on 23 September 1998.

 Netherlands
Humphrey Mijnals
 Bulgaria, 3 April 1960
Born in Paramaribo, Surinam, then a Dutch plantation colony, played three matches for the Netherlands and 45 matches for Suriname.[9][10][11]

 Norway
John Carew
 Egypt, 18 November 1998
Born in Akershus, of Gambian origin.[12]

 Poland
Emmanuel Olisadebe
 Romania, 16 August 2000
Born in Warri, Nigeria, a naturalised Polish citizen.

 Portugal
Guilherme Espírito Santo
 Spain, 28 November 1937
Born in Lisbon, Portugal, of São Toméan descent.

 Italy
Fabio Liverani
 South Africa, 25 April 2001
Born in Rome to a Somali mother and Italian father.[13]

 Bulgaria
Lúcio Wagner
 Bulgaria, 9 May 2006
Born in Río de Janeiro, Brazil, a naturalized Bulgarian citizen.

 Czech Republic
Theodor Gebre Selassie
 Peru, 4 June 2011
Born in Třebíč to an Ethiopian father and Czech mother.[14]

tag: table


document_title: Terrorism

question_text: the origins of the word terrorism within western civilization can be traced back to

question_tokens: the origins of the word terrorism within western civilization can be traced back to

text: Terrorism

text: Terminology[edit]

text: Origin in French Revolution[edit]

text: The Latin verb terrere means: to frighten.[17] The English word 'terror', just like the French terreur, derives from that Latin word and means from of old: fright, alarm, anguish, (mortal) fear, panic.

text: Oxford English Dictionary reportedly states that the word 'terrorist' (French: terroriste) was invented in the year 1794, during the French Revolution. The first meaning of the word 'terrorist' was then: adherent or supporter of the Jacobins.[18] Apparent from the context given in an article in the Guardian, the indication 'Jacobins' in that Oxford definition bears on the group around Maximilien Robespierre, also called 'Montagnards', that after 1794 were held responsible by some commentators for the repressive and violent government over France between June 1793 and July 1794, a period analogously labeled 'Reign of Terror' by commentators.[18] The given definition in Oxford Dictionary shows, the term 'terrorist' in its first use was meant as abusive term for someone's political or historical ideas or allegiances, not as description of his personal actions.[18]

text:
In December 1795, Edmund Burke used the word "Terrorists" in a description of the new French government called 'Directory':
"At length, after a terrible struggle, the [Directory] Troops prevailed over the Citizens (…) To secure them further, they have a strong corps of irregulars, ready armed. Thousands of those Hell-hounds called Terrorists, whom they had shut up in Prison on their last Revolution, as the Satellites of Tyranny, are let loose on the people."[19]
Clearly, in this case, Burke used 'Terrorists' as disparaging labeling of armed troops hired by a government he loathes.

text: French historian Sophie Wahnich(French) distinguishes between the revolutionary terror of the French Revolution and the terrorists of the September 11 attacks:

text: Revolutionary terror is not terrorism. To make a moral equivalence between the Revolution's year II and September 2001 is historical and philosophical nonsense . . . The violence exercised on 11 September 2001 aimed neither at equality nor liberty. Nor did the preventive war announced by the president of the United States.[20][21]

text: Definitions[edit]

text: This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (March 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: This section needs attention from an expert in Law. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the section. WikiProject Law may be able to help recruit an expert. (March 2017)

text: There are over 109 different definitions of terrorism.[22] U.S. American political philosopher Michael Walzer in 2002 wrote: "Terrorism is the deliberate killing of innocent people, at random, to spread fear through a whole population and force the hand of its political leaders".[8] This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist".[23] Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" (Народная расправа) in 1869.[24]

text: In November 2004, a Secretary-General of the United Nations report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".[25] Alternatively, responding to developments in modern warfare, Paul James and Jonathan Friedman distinguish between state terrorism against non-combatants and state terrorism against combatants, including 'Shock and Awe' tactics:

text: "Shock and Awe" as a subcategory of "rapid dominance" is the name given to massive intervention designed to strike terror into the minds of the enemy. It is a form of state-terrorism. The concept was however developed long before the Second Gulf War by Harlan Ullman as chair of a forum of retired military personnel.[26]

text: But defining terrorism has proven controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[27][28] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian parliament, stated,

text: The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term floundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination.[29]

text: These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.[30] The international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities.

text: Since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism:

text: Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.[31]

text: U.S. Code Title 22 Chapter 38, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience".[32]

text: Bruce Hoffman, an American scholar, has noted:

text: It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, 'Political Terrorism: A Research Guide,' Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definitions of terrorism in an effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schmid was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the "search for an adequate definition is still on". Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt.[33]

text: Hoffman believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:

text: By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is:

text:
ineluctably political in aims and motives;
violent – or, equally important, threatens violence;
designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target;
conducted either by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) or by individuals or a small collection of individuals directly influenced, motivated, or inspired by the ideological aims or example of some existent terrorist movement and/or its leaders;

tag: ul

text: and

text: perpetrated by a subnational group or nonstate entity.[34]

text: A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

text: Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states.[35]

text: Each act of terrorism is a "performance" devised to affect many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,[36] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist group and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.[37]

text: Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.[38] This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"[39] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.[40]

text: Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.[41]

text: Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.[42][better source needed] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. For example, carrying out a strategic bombing on an enemy city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,[attribution needed] because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;[43] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[44][45][46][47]

text: According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimately in a political judgment.[48]

text: An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.[49] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism.

text: U.S. president Barack Obama, commenting on the Boston Marathon bombings of April 2013, declared that "[a]nytime bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror".[50] Various commentators have pointed out the distinction between "act of terror" and "terrorism", particularly when used by the White House.[51][52] 18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism":

text: "International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

text: Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.

text: Pejorative use[edit]

text: Having the moral charge in our vocabulary of 'something morally wrong', the term 'terrorism' is often used to abuse or denounce opposite parties, either governments or non-state-groups.[9][10][4][11][8]

text: Those labeled "terrorists" by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words that have entered the English lexicon. It is common for both parties in a conflict to describe each other as terrorists.[53]

text: On whether particular terrorist acts, such as killing non-combatants, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: while, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive of cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good that could not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism".[54] Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism can be morally justified in only one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so".[54][55]

text: In his book Inside Terrorism Bruce Hoffman offered an explanation of why the term terrorism becomes distorted:

text: On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, 'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization terrorist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.[56][57][58]

text: The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".[53] This is exemplified when a group using irregular military methods is an ally of a state against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the state and starts to use those methods against its former ally. During World War II, the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor (the Malayan Races Liberation Army), were branded "terrorists" by the British.[59][60] More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the mujaheddin "freedom fighters" during the Soviet–Afghan War[61] yet twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan men were fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks were labelled "terrorism" by George W. Bush.[62][63][64] Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action.[65][66][67] Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as unlawful attacks for political or other ideological goals, and said:

text: There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless.[68]

text: Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called "terrorists" by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called "statesmen" by similar organizations. Two examples of this phenomenon are the Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.[69][70][71][72][73][74] WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange has been called a "terrorist" by Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.[75][76]

text: Sometimes, states that are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree over whether or not members of a certain organization are terrorists. For instance, for many years, some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists while the IRA was using methods against one of the United States' closest allies (the United Kingdom) that the UK branded as terrorism. This was highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case.[77][78]

text: Media outlets who wish to convey impartiality may limit their usage of "terrorist" and "terrorism" because they are loosely defined, potentially controversial in nature, and subjective terms.[79][80]

text: History[edit]

text: Depending on how broadly the term is defined, the roots and practice of terrorism can be traced at least to the 1st-century AD.[81] Sicarii Zealots, though some dispute whether the group, a radical offshoot of the Zealots which was active in Judaea Province at the beginning of the 1st century AD, was in fact terrorist. According to the contemporary Jewish-Roman historian Josephus, after the Zealotry rebellion against Roman rule in Judea, when some prominent Jewish collaborators with Roman rule were killed,[82][83] Judas of Galilee formed a small and more extreme offshoot of the Zealots, the Sicarii, in 6 AD.[84] Their terror was also directed against Jewish "collaborators", including temple priests, Sadducees, Herodians, and other wealthy elites.[85]

text: The term "terrorism" itself was originally used to describe the actions of the Jacobin Club during the "Reign of Terror" in the French Revolution. "Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible", said Jacobin leader Maximilien Robespierre. In 1795, Edmund Burke denounced the Jacobins for letting "thousands of those hell-hounds called Terrorists ... loose on the people" of France.

text: In January 1858, Italian patriot Felice Orsini threw three bombs in an attempt to assassinate French Emperor Napoleon III.[86] Eight bystanders were killed and 142 injured.[86] The incident played a crucial role as an inspiration for the development of the early terrorist groups.[86]

text: Arguably the first organization to utilize modern terrorist techniques was the Irish Republican Brotherhood,[87] founded in 1858 as a revolutionary Irish nationalist group[88] that carried out attacks in England.[89] The group initiated the Fenian dynamite campaign in 1881, one of the first modern terror campaigns.[90] Instead of earlier forms of terrorism based on political assassination, this campaign used modern, timed explosives with the express aim of sowing fear in the very heart of metropolitan Britain, in order to achieve political gains.[91]

text: Another early terrorist group was Narodnaya Volya, founded in Russia in 1878 as a revolutionary anarchist group inspired by Sergei Nechayev and "propaganda by the deed" theorist Carlo Pisacane.[81][92][93] The group developed ideas—such as targeted killing of the 'leaders of oppression'—that were to become the hallmark of subsequent violence by small non-state groups, and they were convinced that the developing technologies of the age—such as the invention of dynamite, which they were the first anarchist group to make widespread use of[94]—enabled them to strike directly and with discrimination.[95]

text: Scholars of terrorism refer to four major waves of global terrorism: "the Anarchist, the Anti-Colonial, the New Left, and the Religious. The first three have been completed and lasted around 40 years; the fourth is now in its third decade."[96]

text: Infographics[edit]

text:
Terrorist incidents, 1970–2015. A total of 157,520 incidents are plotted. Orange: 1970–1999, Red: 2000–2015

Top 10 Countries (2000–2014)

Worldwide non-state terrorist incidents 1970–2015

text: Types[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Depending on the country, the political system, and the time in history, the types of terrorism are varying.

text: In early 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee wrote was titled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the direction of H. H. A. Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff.

text: The Task Force defines terrorism as "a tactic or technique by means of which a violent act or the threat thereof is used for the prime purpose of creating overwhelming fear for coercive purposes". It classified disorders and terrorism into six categories:[100]

text:
Civil disorder – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community.
Political terrorism – Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes.
Non-Political terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits "conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective".
Quasi-terrorism – The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-terrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences and reaction.[101][102][103] For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite different.
Limited political terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to "acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the state".
Official or state terrorism – "referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions". It may also be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of their foreign policy.

text: Other sources have defined the typology of terrorism in different ways, for example, broadly classifying it into domestic terrorism and international terrorism, or using categories such as vigilante terrorism or insurgent terrorism.[104] One way the typology of terrorism may be defined:[105][106]

text:
Political terrorism

Sub-state terrorism

Social revolutionary terrorism
Nationalist-separatist terrorism
Religious extremist terrorism

Religious fundamentalist Terrorism
New religions terrorism

Right-wing terrorism
Left-wing terrorism

State-sponsored terrorism
Regime or state terrorism

Criminal terrorism
Pathological terrorism

text: Motivations of terrorists[edit]

text: Attacks on 'collaborators' are used to intimidate people from cooperating with the state in order to undermine state control. This strategy was used in Ireland, in Kenya, in Algeria and in Cyprus during their independence struggles.

text: Attacks on high-profile symbolic targets are used to incite counter-terrorism by the state to polarize the population.[clarification needed][citation needed] This strategy was used by Al-Qaeda in its attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in the United States on September 11, 2001. These attacks are also used to draw international attention to struggles that are otherwise unreported, such as the Palestinian airplane hijackings in 1970 and the South Moluccan hostage crisis in the Netherlands in 1975.

text: Abrahm suggests that terrorist organizations do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.[107] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.[107] Additionally, Michael Mousseau shows possible relationships between the type of economy within a country and ideology associated with terrorism.[108] Many terrorists have a history of domestic violence.[109]

text: Some terrorists like Timothy McVeigh were motivated by revenge against a state for its actions against its citizens.

text: According to Paul Gill, John Horgan and Paige Deckert on behalf of The Department of security of UK, 43% of lone wolf terrorism is motivated by religious beliefs. The same report indicates that Just less than a third (31.9%) have pre-existing mental health disorders, while many are found to have these problems upon arrest. At least 37% lived alone at the time of their event planning and/or execution, a further 26.1% lived with others, and no data were available for the remaining cases. 40.2% were unemployed at the time of their arrest or terrorist event. Many were chronically unemployed and consistently struggled to hold any form of employment for a significant amount of time. 19.3% subjectively experienced being disrespected by others, while 14.3% experienced being the victim of verbal or physical assault. [110]

text: It is true that one of the main reasons behind terrorism is a strong religious belief however there are other factors such as cultural, social and political. Even though these reasons are like most around the world. The drive behind these Chechen terrorists are quite distinct and unique from others. Many of the Chechens considered themselves secular freedom fighters, nationalist insurgents seeking to establish an independent secular state of Chechnya. A distinction must be made from the beginning between national Chechen terrorists and non-Chechen fighters who have adopted the idea from abroad. Few Chechen fighters fought for the jihads although on the other hand most of the non-Chechen fighters did (Janeczko, 2014 [111]

text: One of the major reasons why terrorists are motivated and perhaps eager to carry out horrific acts is assurance of financial stability for their families, that they are given when they join a terrorist organization. An extra grant is provided for the families of suicide bombers.[22]

text: Democracy and domestic terrorism[edit]

text: The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (March 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on Talk:Terrorism. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. (March 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The relationship between domestic terrorism and democracy is very complex. Terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom, and it is least common in the most democratic nations.[112][113][114][115] However, one study suggests that suicide attacks may be an exception to this general rule.[irrelevant citation] Evidence regarding this particular method of terrorism reveals that every modern suicide campaign has targeted a democracy–a state with a considerable degree of political freedom.[116][relevant? – discuss][verify] The study suggests that concessions awarded to terrorists during the 1980s and 1990s for suicide attacks increased their frequency.[example needed][dubious – discuss][117] There is a connection between the existence of civil liberties, democratic participation and terrorism.[improper synthesis?] According to Young and Dugan, these things encourage terrorist groups to organize and generate terror.[118][non sequitur]

text: Some examples of "terrorism" in non-democratic nations include ETA in Spain under Francisco Franco (although the group's terrorist activities increased sharply after Franco's death),[119] the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in pre-war Poland,[120] the Shining Path in Peru under Alberto Fujimori,[121] the Kurdistan Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders[citation needed] and the ANC in South Africa.[122] Democracies, such as Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel, Indonesia, India, Spain, Germany, Italy and the Philippines, have also experienced domestic terrorism.

text: While a democratic nation espousing civil liberties may claim a sense of higher moral ground than other regimes, an act of terrorism within such a state may cause a dilemma: whether to maintain its civil liberties and thus risk being perceived as ineffective in dealing with the problem; or alternatively to restrict its civil liberties and thus risk delegitimizing its claim of supporting civil liberties.[123] For this reason, homegrown terrorism has started to be seen as a greater threat, as stated by former CIA Director Michael Hayden.[124] This dilemma, some social theorists would conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s); namely, to delegitimize the state and cause a systematic shift towards anarchy via the accumulation of negative sentiments towards the state system.[125]

text: Religious terrorism[edit]

text: Terrorist acts throughout history have been performed on religious grounds with the goal to either spread or enforce a system of belief, viewpoint or opinion.[127][dubious – discuss][irrelevant citation] The validity and scope of religious terrorism is limited to an individual's view or a group's view or interpretation of that belief system's teachings.[citation needed][context?]

text: According to the Global Terrorism Index by the University of Maryland, College Park, religious extremism has overtaken national separatism and become the main driver of terrorist attacks around the world. Since 9/11 there has been a five-fold increase in deaths from terrorist attacks. The majority of incidents over the past several years can be tied to groups with a religious agenda. Before 2000, it was nationalist separatist terrorist organisations such as the IRA and Chechen rebels who were behind the most attacks. The number of incidents from nationalist separatist groups has remained relatively stable in the years since while religious extremism has grown. The prevalence of Islamist groups in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria is the main driver behind these trends.[128]

text: Four of the terrorist groups that have been most active since 2001 are Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIL. These groups have been most active in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and Syria. 80% of all deaths from terrorism occurred in one of these five countries.[128]

text: In 2015, the Southern Poverty Law Center released a report on terrorism in the United States. The report (titled The Age of the Wolf) found that during that period, "more people have been killed in America by non-Islamic domestic terrorists than jihadists."[129] The "virulent racist and anti-semitic" ideology of the ultra-right wing Christian Identity movement is usually accompanied by anti-government sentiments.[130] Adherents of Christian Identity believe that whites of European descent can be traced back to the "Lost Tribes of Israel" and many consider Jews to be the Satanic offspring of Eve and the Serpent.[130] This group has committed hate crimes, bombings and other acts of terrorism. Its influence ranges from the Ku Klux Klan and neo-nazi groups to the anti-government militia and sovereign citizen movements.[130] Christian Identity's origins can be traced back to Anglo-Israelism. Anglo-Israelism held the view that Jews were descendants of ancient Israelites who had never been lost. By the 1930s, the movement had been infected with anti-Semitism, and eventually Christian Identity theology diverged from traditional Anglo-Israelism, and developed what is known as the "two seed" theory.[130] According to the two-seed theory, the Jewish people are descended from Cain and the serpent (not from Shem).[130] The white European seedline is descended from the "lost tribes" of Israel. They hold themselves to "God's laws", not to "man's laws", and they do not feel bound to a government that they consider run by Jews and the New World Order.[130]

text: Israel has also had problems with Jewish religious terrorism. Yigal Amir assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. For Amir, killing Rabin was an exemplary act that symbolized the fight against an illegitimate government that was prepared to cede Jewish Holy Land to the Palestinians. [131]

text: Perpetrators[edit]

text: The perpetrators of acts of terrorism can be individuals, groups, or states. According to some definitions, clandestine or semi-clandestine state actors may also carry out terrorist acts outside the framework of a state of war. However, the most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by small and secretive cells, highly motivated to serve a particular cause and many of the most deadly operations in recent times, such as the September 11 attacks, the London underground bombing, 2008 Mumbai attacks and the 2002 Bali bombing were planned and carried out by a close clique, composed of close friends, family members and other strong social networks. These groups benefited from the free flow of information and efficient telecommunications to succeed where others had failed.[132]

text: Over the years, much research has been conducted to distill a terrorist profile to explain these individuals' actions through their psychology and socio-economic circumstances.[133] Others, like Roderick Hindery, have sought to discern profiles in the propaganda tactics used by terrorists. Some security organizations designate these groups as violent non-state actors.[citation needed] A 2007 study by economist Alan B. Krueger found that terrorists were less likely to come from an impoverished background (28% vs. 33%) and more likely to have at least a high-school education (47% vs. 38%). Another analysis found only 16% of terrorists came from impoverished families, vs. 30% of male Palestinians, and over 60% had gone beyond high school, vs. 15% of the populace.A study into the poverty-stricken conditions and whether or not,terrorists are more likely to come from here,show that people who grew up in these situations tend to show aggression and frustration towards others. This theory is largely debated for the simple fact that just because one is frustrated,does not make them a potential terrorist.[22][134]

text: To avoid detection, a terrorist will look, dress, and behave normally until executing the assigned mission. Some claim that attempts to profile terrorists based on personality, physical, or sociological traits are not useful.[135] The physical and behavioral description of the terrorist could describe almost any normal person.[136] However, the majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by military age men, aged 16–40.[136]

text: Non-state groups[edit]

text: Groups not part of the state apparatus of in opposition to the state are most commonly referred to as a "terrorist" in the media.

text: State sponsors[edit]

text: A state can sponsor terrorism by funding or harboring a terrorist group. Opinions as to which acts of violence by states consist of state-sponsored terrorism vary widely. When states provide funding for groups considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such.[137][citation needed]

text: State terrorism[edit]

text: Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur it is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims.

text: As with "terrorism" the concept of "state terrorism" is controversial.[139] The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law.[140] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law".[141] However, he also made clear that, "regardless of the differences between governments on the question of the definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is that any deliberate attack on innocent civilians [or non-combatants], regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism."[142]

text: State terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts committed by governmental agents or forces. This involves the use of state resources employed by a state's foreign policies, such as using its military to directly perform acts of terrorism. Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl cites the examples that include the German bombing of London, the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the British and American firebombing of Dresden, and the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. He argues that "the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." He also cites the first strike option as an example of the "terror of coercive diplomacy" as a form of this, which holds the world hostage with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in "crisis management" and he argues that the institutionalized form of terrorism has occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War II. In this analysis, state terrorism exhibited as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of this behavior by the state .[143][144][145]

text: Charles Stewart Parnell described William Ewart Gladstone's Irish Coercion Act as terrorism in his "no-Rent manifesto" in 1881, during the Irish Land War.[146] The concept is also used to describe political repressions by governments against their own civilian populations with the purpose of inciting fear. For example, taking and executing civilian hostages or extrajudicial elimination campaigns are commonly considered "terror" or terrorism, for example during the Red Terror or the Great Terror.[147] Such actions are also often described as democide or genocide, which have been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism.[148] Empirical studies on this have found that democracies have little democide.[149][150] Western democracies, including the United States, have supported state terrorism[151] and mass killings,[152] with some examples being the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–1966 and Operation Condor.[153][154][155]

text: Connection with tourism[edit]

text: The connection between terrorism and tourism has been widely studied since the Luxor massacre in Egypt.[156][157] In the 1970s, the targets of terrorists were politicians and chiefs of police while now, international tourists and visitors are selected as the main targets of attacks. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, were the symbolic epicenter, which marked a new epoch in the use of civil transport against the main power of the planet.[158] From this event onwards, the spaces of leisure that characterized the pride of West, were conceived as dangerous and frightful.[159][160].

text: Funding[edit]

text: State sponsors have constituted a major form of funding; for example, Palestine Liberation Organization, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and other groups considered to be terrorist organizations, were funded by the Soviet Union.[161][162] The Stern Gang received funding from Italian Fascist officers in Beirut to undermine the British Mandate for Palestine.[163] Pakistan has created and nurtured terrorist groups as policy for achieving tactical objectives against its neighbours, especially India.[164]

text: "Revolutionary tax" is another major form of funding, and essentially a euphemism for "protection money".[161] Revolutionary taxes "play a secondary role as one other means of intimidating the target population".[161]

text: Other major sources of funding include kidnapping for ransoms, smuggling (including wildlife smuggling),[165] fraud, and robbery.[161] The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant has reportedly received funding "via private donations from the Gulf states".[166]

text: The Financial Action Task Force is an inter-governmental body whose mandate, since October 2001, has included combating terrorist financing.[167]

text: Tactics[edit]

text: Terrorist attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and publicity, usually using explosives or poison.[169] Terrorist groups usually methodically plan attacks in advance, and may train participants, plant undercover agents, and raise money from supporters or through organized crime. Communications occur through modern telecommunications, or through old-fashioned methods such as couriers. There is also concern about terrorist attacks employing weapons of mass destruction.

text: Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, and is more common when direct conventional warfare will not be effective because forces vary greatly in power.[170]

text: The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political conflict. The type of conflict varies widely; historical examples include:

text:
Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state or become part of a different state
Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups
Imposition of a particular form of government
Economic deprivation of a population
Opposition to a domestic government or occupying army
Religious fanaticism

text: Responses[edit]

text: Responses to terrorism are broad in scope. They can include re-alignments of the political spectrum and reassessments of fundamental values.

text: Specific types of responses include:

text:
Targeted laws, criminal procedures, deportations, and enhanced police powers
Target hardening, such as locking doors or adding traffic barriers
Preemptive or reactive military action
Increased intelligence and surveillance activities
Preemptive humanitarian activities
More permissive interrogation and detention policies

text: The term "counter-terrorism" has a narrower connotation, implying that it is directed at terrorist actors.

text: Response in the United States[edit]

text: According to a report by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin in The Washington Post, "Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States."[171]

text: America's thinking on how to defeat radical Islamists is split along two very different schools of thought. Republicans, typically follow what is known as the Bush Doctrine, advocate the military model of taking the fight to the enemy and seeking to democratize the Middle East. Democrats, by contrast, generally propose the law enforcement model of better cooperation with nations and more security at home.[172] In the introduction of the U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Sarah Sewall states the need for "U.S. forces to make securing the civilian, rather than destroying the enemy, their top priority. The civilian population is the center of gravity—the deciding factor in the struggle.... Civilian deaths create an extended family of enemies—new insurgent recruits or informants––and erode support of the host nation." Sewall sums up the book's key points on how to win this battle: "Sometimes, the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be.... Sometimes, the more force is used, the less effective it is.... The more successful the counterinsurgency is, the less force can be used and the more risk must be accepted.... Sometimes, doing nothing is the best reaction."[173] This strategy, often termed "courageous restraint", has certainly led to some success on the Middle East battlefield, yet it fails to address the central truth: the terrorists we face are mostly homegrown.[172]

text: Terrorism research[edit]

text: Terrorism research, also called terrorism and counter-terrorism research, is an interdisciplinary academic field which seeks to understand the causes of terrorism, how to prevent it as well as its impact in the broadest sense. Terrorism research can be carried out in both military and civilian contexts, for example by research centres such as the British Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence, the Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies, and the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT). There are several academic journals devoted to the field.[174]

text: Mass media[edit]

text: Mass media exposure may be a primary goal of those carrying out terrorism, to expose issues that would otherwise be ignored by the media. Some consider this to be manipulation and exploitation of the media.[175]

text: The Internet has created a new channel for groups to spread their messages.[176] This has created a cycle of measures and counter measures by groups in support of and in opposition to terrorist movements. The United Nations has created its own online counter-terrorism resource.[177]

text: The mass media will, on occasion, censor organizations involved in terrorism (through self-restraint or regulation) to discourage further terrorism. However, this may encourage organizations to perform more extreme acts of terrorism to be shown in the mass media. Conversely James F. Pastor explains the significant relationship between terrorism and the media, and the underlying benefit each receives from the other.[178]

text: There is always a point at which the terrorist ceases to manipulate the media gestalt. A point at which the violence may well escalate, but beyond which the terrorist has become symptomatic of the media gestalt itself. Terrorism as we ordinarily understand it is innately media-related.

text: Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher also famously spoke of the close connection between terrorism and the media, calling publicity 'the oxygen of terrorism'.[180]

text: Outcome of terrorist groups[edit]

text: Jones and Libicki (2008) created a list of all the terrorist groups they could find that were active between 1968 and 2006. They found 648. of those, 136 splintered and 244 were still active in 2006.[182] Of the ones that ended, 43 percent converted to nonviolent political actions, like the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland. Law enforcement took out 40 percent. Ten percent won. Only 20 groups, 7 percent, were taken out by military force.

text: Forty-two groups became large enough to be labeled an insurgency; 38 of those had ended by 2006. Of those, 47 percent converted to nonviolent political actors. Only 5 percent were taken out by law enforcement. 26 percent won. 21 percent succumbed to military force.[183] Jones and Libicki concluded that military force may be necessary to deal with large insurgencies but are only occasionally decisive, because the military is too often seen as a bigger threat to civilians than the terrorists. To avoid that, the rules of engagement must be conscious of collateral damage and work to minimize it.

text: Another researcher, Audrey Cronin, lists six primary ways that terrorist groups end:[184]

text:
Capture or killing of a group's leader. (Decapitation).
Entry of the group into a legitimate political process. (Negotiation).
Achievement of group aims. (Success).
Group implosion or loss of public support. (Failure).
Defeat and elimination through brute force. (Repression).
Transition from terrorism into other forms of violence. (Reorientation).

text: Databases[edit]

text: The following terrorism databases are or were made publicly available for research purposes, and track specific acts of terrorism:

text:
Global Terrorism Database, an open-source database by the University of Maryland, College Park on terrorist events around the world from 1970 through 2015 with more than 150,000 cases.
MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base
Worldwide Incidents Tracking System
Tocsearch (dynamic database)

text: The following public report and index provides a summary of key global trends and patterns in terrorism around the world

text: Global Terrorism Index, produced annually by the Institute for Economics and Peace

text: The following publicly available resources index electronic and bibliographic resources on the subject of terrorism

text: Human Security Gateway

text: The following terrorism databases are maintained in secrecy by the United States Government for intelligence and counter-terrorism purposes:

text:
Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment
Terrorist Screening Database

text: Jones and Libicki (2008) includes a table of 268 terrorist groups active between 1968 and 2006 with their status as of 2006: still active, splintered, converted to nonviolence, removed by law enforcement or military, or won. (These data are not in a convenient machine-readable format but are available.)


document_title: Holy Spirit

question_text: what is the meaning of holy spirit in hebrew

text: Holy Spirit

text: Etymology[edit]

text: The word "Spirit" (from the Latin spiritus meaning "breath") appears as either alone or with other words, in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the New Testament. Combinations include expressions such as the "Holy Spirit", "Spirit of God", and in Christianity, "Spirit of Christ".[3]

text: The word Spirit is rendered as רוּחַ (ruach) in Hebrew-language parts of the Old Testament.[4] In its Aramaic parts, the term is rûacḥ.[5] The Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, translates the word as πνεῦμα (pneuma).[4] This is the same word that is used throughout the New Testament, written originally in Greek.[6]

text: The English term "Spirit" comes from its Latin origin, spiritus, which is how the Vulgate translates both the Old and New Testament concept.[7] The alternative term, "Holy Ghost", comes from Old English translations of spiritus.[8]

text: Comparative religion[edit]

text: The Hebrew Bible contains the term "Spirit of God" (ruach hakodesh) in the sense of the might of a unitary God. This meaning is different from the Christian concept of "Holy Spirit" as one personality of God in the Trinity.[9]

text: The Christian concept tends to emphasize the moral aspect of the Holy Spirit more than Judaism, evident in the epithet Holy Spirit that appeared in Jewish religious writings only relatively late but was a common expression in the Christian New Testament.[10]

text: According to theologian Rudolf Bultmann, there are two ways to think about the Holy Spirit: "animistic" and "dynamistic". In animistic thinking, it is "an independent agent, a personal power which like a demon can fall upon a man and take possession of him, enabling him or compelling him to perform manifestations of power" while in dynamistic thought it "appears as an impersonal force which fills a man like a fluid".[11] Both kinds of thought appear in Jewish and Christian scripture, but animistic is more typical of the Old Testament whereas dynamistic is more common in the New Testament.[12] The distinction coincides with the Holy Spirit as either a temporary or permanent gift. In the Old Testament and Jewish thought, it is primarily temporary with a specific situation or task in mind, whereas in the Christian concept the gift resides in man permanently.[13]

text: On the surface, the Holy Spirit appears to have an equivalent in non-Abrahamic Hellenistic mystery religions. These religions included a distinction between the Spirit and psyche, which is also seen in the Pauline epistles. According to proponents of the History of religions school, the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit cannot be explained from Jewish ideas alone without reference to the Hellenistic religions.[14] However, according to theologian Erik Konsmo, the views "are so dissimilar that the only legitimate connection one can make is with the Greek term πνεῦμα [pneuma, Spirit] itself".[15]

text: Another link with ancient Greek thought is the Stoic idea of the Spirit as anima mundi—or world soul—that unites all people.[15] Some believe that this can be seen in Paul's formulation of the concept of the Holy Spirit that unites Christians in Jesus Christ and love for one another, but Konsmo again thinks that this position is difficult to maintain.[16] In his Introduction to the 1964 book Meditations, the Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth wrote:

text: Another Stoic concept which offered inspiration to the Church was that of 'divine Spirit'. Cleanthes, wishing to give more explicit meaning to Zeno's 'creative fire', had been the first to hit upon the term pneuma, or 'spirit', to describe it. Like fire, this intelligent 'spirit' was imagined as a tenuous substance akin to a current of air or breath, but essentially possessing the quality of warmth; it was immanent in the universe as God, and in man as the soul and life-giving principle. Clearly it is not a long step from this to the 'Holy Spirit' of Christian theology, the 'Lord and Giver of life', visibly manifested as tongues of fire at Pentecost and ever since associated – in the Christian as in the Stoic mind – with the ideas of vital fire and beneficient warmth.[17]

text: Abrahamic religions[edit]

text: Judaism[edit]

text: The Hebrew language phrase ruach ha-kodesh (Hebrew: רוח הקודש, "holy spirit" also transliterated ruacḥ ha-qodesh) is a term used in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) and Jewish writings to refer to the spirit of YHWH (רוח יהוה). It literally means "spirit of the holiness" or "spirit of the holy place". The Hebrew terms ruacḥ qodshəka, "thy holy spirit" (רוּחַ קָדְשְׁךָ), and ruacḥ qodshō, "his holy spirit" (רוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ) also occur (when a possessive suffix is added the definite article is dropped).[citation needed]

text: The "Holy Spirit" in Judaism generally refers to the divine aspect of prophecy and wisdom. It also refers to the divine force, quality, and influence of the Most High God, over the universe or over his creatures, in given contexts.[18]

text:
Ezekiel receives divine command, represented by the Hand of God, Dura-Europos Synagogue, 3rd century CE

Early 14th-century Birds' Head Haggadah: two hands of God appear underneath the text of the Dayenu song,  dispensing the manna from heaven[19]

God calling out from the Burning Bush to prophet Moshe, wing panel wall painting, Dura Europos

text: Christianity[edit]

text: For the large majority of Christians, the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost, from Old English gast, "spirit") is a member of the Trinity: The "Triune God"  manifested as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; each aspect itself being God.[20][21][22] Two symbols from the New Testament canon are associated with the Holy Spirit in Christian iconography: a winged dove, and tongues of fire.[23][24][non-primary source needed] Each depiction of the Holy Spirit arose from different historical accounts in the Gospel narratives; the first being at the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan River where the Holy Spirit was said to descend in the form of a dove as the voice of God the Father spoke as described in Matthew, Mark, and Luke[25];the second being from the day of Pentecost, fifty days after Pascha where the descent of the Holy Spirit came upon the Apostles and other followers of Jesus Christ, as tongues of fire as described in the Acts of the Apostles.2:1–31[26]  Called "the unveiled epiphany of God",[27] the Holy Spirit is the one who empowers the followers of Jesus with spiritual gifts[28][29] and power[30][31] that enabled the proclamation of Jesus Christ, and the power that brought conviction of faith.

text:
Depiction of the Christian Holy Spirit as a dove, by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, in the apse of Saint Peter's Basilica

A depiction of the Trinity consisting of God the Holy Spirit along with God the Father and God the Son

Pentecost icon depicting the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles and Mary in the form of tongues of flame above their heads.

text: Islam[edit]

text: The Holy Spirit (Arabic: روح القدس  Ruh al-Qudus, "the holy spirit") is mentioned four times in the Qur'an,[32] where it acts as an agent of divine action or communication. While there are similarities to the Holy Spirit mentioned in Christian and Jewish, it is unclear if these four references[33] refer to the same Holy Spirit. The Muslim interpretation of the Holy Spirit is generally consistent with other interpretations based upon the Old and the New Testaments. On the basis of narrations in certain Hadith some Muslims identify it with the angel Gabriel (Arabic Jibrāʾīl).[citation needed] The Spirit (الروح al-Ruh, without the adjective "holy" or "exalted") is described, among other things, as the creative spirit from God by which God enlivened Adam, and which inspired in various ways God's messengers and prophets, including Jesus and Abraham. The belief in a "Holy Trinity", according to the Qur'an, is forbidden and deemed to be blasphemy. The same prohibition applies to any idea of the duality of God (Allah).[34][35]

text: Other religions[edit]

text: Other religions reference a spirit that has a name resembling the Holy Spirit found in the Christian and Jewish faiths, but similar to Islam, this is a different spirit with a different purpose that is unique to those religions, as is seen below:

text: Bahá'í Faith[edit]

text: The Bahá'í Faith has the concept of the Most Great Spirit, seen as the bounty of God.[36] It is usually used to describe the descent of the Spirit of God upon the messengers/prophets of God who include, among others, Jesus, Muhammad and Bahá'u'lláh.[37]

text: In Bahá'í belief, the Holy Spirit is the conduit through which the wisdom of God becomes directly associated with his messenger, and it has been described variously in different religions such as the burning bush to Moses, the sacred fire to Zoroaster, the dove to Jesus, the angel Gabriel to Muhammad, and the Maid of Heaven to Bahá'u'lláh.[38] The Bahá'í view rejects the idea that the Holy Spirit is a partner to God in the Godhead, but rather is the pure essence of God's attributes.[39]

text: Hinduism[edit]

text: The Hinduism concept of Advaita is linked to Trinity and has been briefly explained by Raimon Panikkar, Professor of Comparative Religion and History of Religions, Department of Religious Studies of the University of California. He states that the Holy Spirit, as one of the Three Persons of the Trinity of "father, Logos and Holy Spirit", is a bridge builder between Christianity and Hinduism. He explains that  “The meeting of spiritualistic can take place in the Spirit. No new 'system'  has primarily to come of this encounter, but a new and yet old spirit must emerges."[40] In North India, Indian Christians have associated the Hindu term Atman with the Holy Spirit.  Atman is Vedic terminology elaborated in Hindu scriptures such as Upanishads and Vedanta signifies  the Ultimate Reality and Absolute.[41]

text: Buddhism[edit]

text: In Buddhism, Holy Spirit is compared to Buddha Nature as a Buddhist image or Christ consciousness, a oneness with an all encompassing plan. Hence, the Holy Spirit is considered the "means of which the faithful develop and journey to their spiritual goal."[42]

text: Sikhism[edit]

text: In Sikhism, the Guru is the medium and the Holy spirit is stated to have moved from Guru Nanak to the nine Sikh Gurus who followed him culminating with Guru Gobind Singh, the "tenth Guru Nanak".[43]

text: Zoroastrianism[edit]

text: In Zoroastrianism, the Holy Spirit, also known as Spenta Mainyu, is a hypostasis of Ahura Mazda, the supreme Creator God of Zoroastrianism; the Holy Spirit is seen as the source of all goodness in the universe, the spark of all life within humanity, and is the ultimate guide for humanity to righteousness and communion with God. The Holy Spirit is put in direct opposition to its eternal dual counterpart, Angra Mainyu, who is the source of all wickedness and who leads humanity astray.[44][45]


document_title: Hands of Stone

question_text: who played sugar ray leonard in hands of stone

text: Hands of Stone

text: Plot[edit]

text: The film follows the life of Panamanian boxing legend Roberto Durán, who made his professional boxing debut in 1968 as a 16-year-old and retired in 2001 at age 50.

text: Growing up in Panama, Durán is homeschooled by Chaflan, who teaches young Roberto some vital life lessons. Later, Duran joins a boxing club with Nestor "Plomo" Quiñones as his coach.

text: As he reaches 20, an American legendary boxing trainer Ray Arcel, who nearly lost his life after being attacked by an unknown assailant in 1953 in New York City and is now living with his wife Stephanie, notices Roberto's raw talent and punching power and takes the young fighter under his wing, becoming his coach. Not long after, Durán then meets a student, Felicidad, with whom he later has five children.

text: After his fights through the 70s and 80s, rising through the divisions with phenomenal success (just one loss) he challenges Sugar Ray Leonard, dubbed as the "Fighter of the Year." However, Durán is disrespectful of Leonard, describing him as a "clown" and confidently predicts a knock out win for himself.

text: One night, Durán confronts Leonard in front of his wife and insults him by calling him a "homosexual." The incident frustrates Ray. Durán's hard feelings for Ray, on the other hand seem to stem from his resentment of Americans in general, because he recalls the ill-treatment meted out by the Americans to the nation of Panama, remembering how American troops took over the country by owning the Panama Canal — leading to conflict between the sides in 1964.

text: In June 1980, the day of fight between Durán and Leonard in which the venue is in Montreal, Durán wins via Unanimous decision as a Welterweight Champion (148-147, 145-144, 146-144). After the fight, Leonard states that being insulted is a strategy and calls for a rematch with an $8 million purse. At the house party, informed by his manager Carlos Eleta, Durán reluctantly agrees to the rematch. Chaflan is killed after being run over by a truck.

text: In November 1980, Durán and Leonard face at the ring for the second time, this time the venue is in New Orleans. But in the eighth round, the people of Panama are shocked when Durán gives up by saying "No más" (English: "No more") to the referee, thus Leonard wins via technical knockout (68–66, 68–66, and 67–66).

text: Upon returning home in Panama, he faces angry protests. Durán tells his wife that he regrets letting them down and needs to go back in the ring in order to regain his popularity and the forgiveness of his fans. Due to this incident, Arcel is retired from his training and tells Durán that Plomo will be his coach. In June 1983, New York City, the day of his fight against Davey Moore, Leonard gratefully meets Durán for the first time since the rematch, saying that he forgives Durán. He tells Leonard that he gives his apology to his wife. At the fight with Moore up to the eighth round, now Leonard is now commentator, Durán won via technical knockout, eventually restores his popularity and pride by the people of Panama.

text: In the film's epilogue, it states that Plomo was in Durán's side for each fight until his death in 2012; Leonard and Durán remain friends until now; Ray was the first boxing trainer to be elected to the Boxing Hall of Fame and died of leukemia in 1994 after the six-year battle.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Édgar Ramírez as Roberto Durán
Robert De Niro as Ray Arcel[5]
Usher as Sugar Ray Leonard[6]
Oscar Jaenada as Chaflan
Jurnee Smollett-Bell as Juanita Leonard
Ellen Barkin as Stephanie Arcel[7]
Rubén Blades as Carlos Eleta[8]
Pedro Pérez as Plomo Quiñones[9]
Ana de Armas as Felicidad Iglesias
John Turturro as Frankie Carbo
Eliud Kauffman as Margarito Duran
John Duddy as Ken Buchanan[10]
Joe Urla as Angelo Dundee

text: Production[edit]

text: Production on the film began in December 2013 in Panama.[11] Principal photography was completed in March 2014.

text: Release[edit]

text: In May 2015, The Weinstein Company acquired distribution rights to the film, with a 2,000 screen commitment.[12] The film was scheduled to be released on August 26, 2016 in 800 theaters before expanding to 2,500 theaters on Wednesday August 31.[4][13]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: Hands of Stone was released on August 26, 2016 and was projected to gross around $2–3 million from 810 theaters in its opening weekend.[13] In its limited opening weekend the film grossed $1.7 million, finishing 16th at the box office.[14] In its second weekend, despite being added to 1,201 theaters, the film grossed just $1.3 million, finishing 20th at the box office.[15]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A+" on an A+ to F scale.[16] On Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating, the film has a score of 54 out of 100, based on 31 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[17]


document_title: Left–right political spectrum

question_text: where do the terms left-wing and right-wing originate

text: Left–right political spectrum

text: History of the terms[edit]

text: The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained, "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp." However, the Right opposed the seating arrangement because they believed that deputies should support private or general interests but should not form factions or political parties. The contemporary press occasionally used the terms "left" and "right" to refer to the opposing sides.[6]When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by a Legislative Assembly comprising entirely new members, the divisions continued. "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien Régime had previously gathered.[clarification needed] When the succeeding National Convention met in 1792, the seating arrangement continued, but following the coup d'état of 2 June 1793, and the arrest of the Girondins, the right side of the assembly was deserted, and any remaining members who had sat there moved to the centre. However, following the Thermidorian Reaction of 1794, the members of the far left were excluded, and the method of seating was abolished. The new constitution included rules for the assembly that would "break up the party groups."[7]

text: However, following the Restoration in 1814–1815, political clubs were again formed. The majority ultraroyalists chose to sit on the right. The "constitutionals" sat in the centre while independents sat on the left. The terms extreme right and extreme left, as well as centre-right and centre-left, came to be used to describe the nuances of ideology of different sections of the assembly.[8]

text: The terms "left" and "right" were not used to refer to political ideology per se, but only to seating in the legislature. After 1848, the main opposing camps were the "democratic socialists" and the "reactionaries" who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliation.[9]

text: With the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the terms were adopted by political parties: the Republican Left, the Centre Right, and the Centre Left (1871) and the Extreme Left (1876) and Radical Left (1881). The beliefs of the group called the Radical Left were actually closer to the Centre Left than the beliefs of those called the Extreme Left.[10]

text: Beginning in the early twentieth century the terms Left and Right came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens' political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms "reds" and "the reaction". Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives". The words Left and Right were at first used by their opponents as slurs. By 1914 the left half of the legislature in France was composed of Unified Socialists, Republican Socialists and Socialist Radicals, while the parties that were called "Left" now sat on the right side. The use of the words Left and Right spread from France to other countries, and came to be applied to a large number of political parties worldwide, which often differed in their political beliefs.[11]

text: There was asymmetry in the use of the terms Left and Right by the opposing sides. The Right mostly denied that the left–right spectrum was meaningful because they saw it as artificial and damaging to unity. The Left, however, seeking to change society, promoted the distinction. As Alain observed in 1931, "When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left."[12]

text: In British politics the terms 'Right' and 'Left' came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.[13]

text: The Scottish sociologist Robert M. MacIver noted in The Web of Government (1947):

text: The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defense and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes.[14]

text: Ideological groupings across the spectrum[edit]

text: Generally, the left wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism," while the right wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism."[15]

text: Political scientists and other analysts regard the Left as including anarchists,[16][17] communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives, and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality[21] and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.[22]

text: Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including Christian democrats, conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries, and traditionalists.

text: A number of significant political movements—including feminism and regionalism—do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum.[26] Though nationalism is often regarded as a right-wing doctrine, many nationalists favor egalitarian distributions of resources. There are also "liberal nationalists."[27] Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations (see left-wing populism, right-wing populism).[28] Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right.[29]

text: Political parties in the political spectrum[edit]

text: Political scientists have observed that the ideologies of political parties can be mapped along a single left–right axis.[30] Klaus von Beyme categorized European parties into nine families, which described most parties. He was able to arrange seven of them from left to right: communist, socialist, green, liberal, Christian democratic, conservative and right-wing extremist. The position of agrarian and regional/ethnic parties varied.[31] A study conducted in the late 1980s on two bases, positions on ownership of the means of production and positions on social issues, confirmed this arrangement.[32]

text: There has been a tendency for party ideologies to persist, and values and views that were present at a party's founding have survived. However they have also adapted for pragmatic reasons, making them appear more similar.[33] Lipset and Rokkan observed that modern party systems are the product of social conflicts played out in the last few centuries.[34] They said that lines of cleavage had become 'frozen'.[35]

text: The first modern political parties were liberals, organized by the middle class in the 19th century to protect them against the aristocracy. They were major political parties in that century but declined in the twentieth century as first the working class came to support socialist parties and economic and social change eroded their middle class base.[36] Conservative parties arose in opposition to liberals in order to defend aristocratic privilege. But in order to attract voters they became less doctrinaire than liberals. However they were unsuccessful in most countries and generally have been able to achieve power only through cooperation with other parties.[37]

text: Socialist parties were organized in order to achieve political rights for workers and were originally allied with liberals. However they broke with the liberals when they sought worker control of the means of production.[38] Christian democratic parties were organized by Catholics who saw liberalism as a threat to traditional values. Although established in the 19th century, they became a major political force following the Second World War.[39] Communist parties emerged following a division within socialism first on support of the First World War and then support of the Bolshevik Revolution.[40]

text: Right-wing extremist parties are harder to define, other than being more right-wing than other parties, but include fascists and some extreme conservative and nationalist parties.[41]

text: Green parties were the most recent of the major party groups to develop. They have mostly rejected socialism and are very liberal on social issues.[42]

text: These categories can be applied to many parties outside Europe.[43] Ware (1996) asserted that in the United States both major parties were liberal[clarification needed], even though there are left–right policy differences between them.[44]

text: Usage in Western Europe[edit]

text: In the 2001 book The government and politics of France, Knapp and Wright say that the main factor dividing the left and right wings in Western Europe is class. The Left seeks social justice through redistributive social and economic policies, while the Right defends private property and capitalism. The nature of the conflict depends on existing social and political cleavages and on the level of economic development.[45] Left-wing values include the belief in the power of human reason to achieve progress for the benefit of the human race, secularism, sovereignty exercised through the legislature, social justice, and mistrust of strong personal political leadership. To the Right, this is regularly seen as anti-clericalism, unrealistic social reform, doctrinaire socialism and class hatred. The Right are skeptical about the capacity for radical reforms to achieve human well-being while maintaining workplace competition. They believe in the established church both in itself and as an instrument of social cohesion, and believe in the need for strong political leadership to minimize social and political divisions. To the Left, this is seen as a selfish and reactionary opposition to social justice, a wish to impose doctrinaire religion on the population, and a tendency to authoritarianism and repression.[46][47]

text: The differences between left and right have altered over time. The initial cleavage at the time of the French Revolution was between supporters of absolute monarchy (the Right) and those who wished to limit the king's authority (the Left). During the 19th century the cleavage was between monarchists and republicans. Following the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the cleavage was between supporters of a strong executive on the Right and supporters of the primacy of the legislature on the Left.[48]

text: Contemporary usage in the United States[edit]

text: The terms left-wing and right-wing are widely used in the United States but, as on the global level, there is no firm consensus about their meaning. The only aspect that is generally agreed upon is that they are the defining opposites of the United States political spectrum. Left and right in the U.S. are generally associated with liberal and conservative respectively, although the meanings of the two sets of terms do not entirely coincide. Depending on the political affiliation of the individual using them, these terms can be spoken with varying implications. A 2005 poll of 2,209 American adults showed that "respondents generally viewed the paired concepts liberals and left-wingers and conservatives and right-wingers as possessing, respectively, generally similar political beliefs", but also showed that around ten percent fewer respondents understood the terms left and right than understood the terms liberal and conservative.[49]

text: The contemporary Left in the United States is usually understood as a category that includes New Deal social-liberals (in contrast to traditions of social democracy more common to Western Europe), Rawlsian liberals, and civil libertarians, who are often identified with the Democratic Party. In general, the term left-wing is understood to imply a commitment to egalitarianism, support for social policies that appeal to the working class, and multiculturalism. The contemporary center-left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce and industry; protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion; and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities and the working class.[50]

text: Relevance of the terms today[edit]

text: Some political scientists have suggested that the classifications of "left" and "right" are no longer meaningful in the modern complex world. Although these terms continue to be used, they advocate a more complex spectrum that attempts to combine political, economic and social dimensions.[51]

text: However, a survey conducted between 1983 and 1994 by Bob Altemeyer of Canadian legislative caucuses showed an 82% correlation between party affiliation and score on a scale for right-wing authoritarianism when comparing right-wing and social democratic caucuses. There was a wide gap between the scores of the two groups, which was filled by liberal caucuses. His survey of American legislative caucuses showed scores by American Republicans and Democrats were similar to the Canadian Right and liberals, with a 44% correlation between party affiliation and score.[52]

text: Norberto Bobbio saw the polarization of the Italian Chamber of Deputies in the 1990s as evidence that the linear left–right axis remained valid. He thought that the argument that the spectrum had disappeared occurred when either the Left or Right were weak. The dominant side would claim that its ideology was the only possible one, while the weaker side would minimize its differences. He saw the Left and Right not in absolute terms, but as relative concepts that would vary over time. In his view, the left–right axis could be applied to any time period.[53]

text: Libertarian writer David Boaz argued that terms left and right are used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors, with those on the "left" typically emphasizing their support for working people and accusing the right of supporting the interests of the upper class, and those on the "right" usually emphasizing their support for individualism and accusing the Left of supporting collectivism. Boaz asserts that arguments about the way the words should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.[54]

text: In 2006 British Prime Minister Tony Blair described the main cleavage in politics as not left versus right but open versus closed.[55] In this model, attitudes towards social issues and globalism are more important than the conventional economic left–right issues: "open" voters tend to be socially liberal, multicultural and in favour of globalism, while "closed" voters are culturally conservative, opposed to immigration, and in favour of protectionism. This model has seen increased support following the rise of populist and centrist parties in the 2010s.[56][57]